All of human history, generally up until The Enlightenment. But perhaps the most obvious example would be in ancient Rome. The ancient concept of patria potestas granted the father of the Roman family the right to “dispose” of the life of his children and his slaves for any reason and any way in which he chose. Just as he had given them life, so he could take it away. While this example is specific, it was actually a very comment social belief across the ancient world.Just some guy wrote:ok great, point out some time in history when killing someone was a ok
First (and ignoring that yo have no legitimate basis for leaving aside the wars), I have to point out that you have decided to toss out a red herring; wither or not the killings were "legal." This actually constitutes a comprehensive concession of the necessity of government and government regulation. "Legality" is dependent upon a functioning state that can create and enforce "law." Legality depends on law as a human invention.Just some guy wrote:besides the wars, which is different then you beating your neighbor to death because you did not like him, the lynching, etc was illegal
But red herring aside, you are factually wrong that lynching was always illegal. The creation of anti-lynching laws was a gradual process that did not take place without active opposition. Starting in 1909, federal legislators introduced more than 200 bills in Congress to make lynching a Federal crime, but they failed to pass, chiefly because of Southern legislators' opposition. As a result, for most of the history of the United States, lynching was rarely prosecuted, as the same people who would have had to prosecute and sit on juries were generally on the side of the action or related to the perpetrators in the small communities where many lived. In the South, blacks generally were not able to serve on juries, as they could not vote, having been disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration and electoral rules passed by majority-white legislatures in the late 19th century, who also imposed Jim Crow laws. Opponents of legislation often said lynchings prevented murder and rape. They were essentially making the same claim to a "natural right" for self defense that you are making.
Perhaps the "legality" argument is not your strongest. It certainly offers no support for any concept of "natural rights."
It was completely legal within the territory controlled by the 3rd Reich. It was in fact a objective of German law.Just some guy wrote:oh that (The Holocaust) was legal? that was cool to do? or was there war trials afterwards for those who did it?
Again... by citing the war crimes trials that came afterward, you are putting an even finer point on the reality that all rights are invented and applied by humans, that there is nothing "natural" about them. And different human communities, even today, have different ideas regarding what is a "right" and what is not; a circumstance completely inexplicable were such rights actually "natural."
You are being inchoate. Research just proved what "theory wrong with the chimps"? As far as I can tell, no one has ever originally theorized that chimps kill for no reason, but in point of fact, research has progressively gone the other way with chimps; our conception of them in the wild has changed from chimps as peaceful fruit eaters to violent predators that also engage in intra-specific warfare and slaughter.Just some guy wrote:what you mean is that according to our research, we do not think there is a reason. researchers just proved that theory wrong with the chimps, given enough time i'm sure the same will be said for the others. But thanks for offering incite on a topic you are clueless about
Please... be explicit. What is your actual assertion here?
You missed the chapter because there is no such book. If there was "natural law for humans" as distinct from natural law in general, you make my point for me. If we must adapt natural law for humans, it is not natural then. Is it?Just some guy wrote:I missed the chapter viruses from the book "natural law for humans", I will have to re read it.
Human law (and human rights) are our own invention, rather than anything derivable from nature.